From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 4/02/2026 1:43 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   > On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 16:27:52 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 3/02/2026 3:18 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 11:46:21 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 3/02/2026 10:50 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   >>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 23:04:50 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 2/02/2026 4:21 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:18:56 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 2/02/2026 7:59 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 06:57:31 +1100   
   >>>>>>>>> MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 2/02/2026 1:55 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> []   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I came to see what recent advances there had been on how life   
   began.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> 'Goddidit' isn't a satisfactory answer.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> What if, in reality, God did it?   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Then he's a rubbish creator, if it takes 4 billion years to get any   
   >>>>>>>>> worshipper feedback.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> What if I asked you a trick question with a huge suppostion in it?   
   >>>>>>>>> e.g.   
   >>>>>>>>> Do you feel some deep insecurity about life that you need a 'god'   
   >>>>>>>>> to comfort you?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Marx's "opium of the people"?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Certainly, recognise one's worldview and the risk of confirmation bias   
   >>>>>>>> etc that it brings. I try to argue on the basis of science, as best I   
   >>>>>>>> can. But who of us is free from the influence of our preconceptions   
   and   
   >>>>>>>> beliefs?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Similarly, do you reject God   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You mean reject the idea of God.  After all, there's no God there to   
   >>>>>>> reject.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> because the idea of moral accountability is   
   >>>>>>>> uncomfortable?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> No, that can't be it.  There's no reason to be morally accountable to   
   >>>>>>> some Cosmic Designer.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> On what basis do you assert that?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The lack of  a rationale for equating an Intelligent Designer with the   
   >>>>> God of the Bible.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> A creator may well have expectations of their creation.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Or "they" may not.  So there's nothing in the data for atheists to shy   
   >>>>> away from, morally, if indeed there were such a concern among atheists   
   >>>>> (which you haven't demonstrated, of course).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You've missed the logic. To reiterate: one's metaphysics either way   
   >>>> (theist or atheist) both have a risk of bias when assessing evidence.   
   >>>> For the theist, a desire to confirm a God of love and purpose (as a   
   >>>> potential recipient of those);   
   >>>   
   >>> Which a Cosmic Designer might very well not be.  So do you really gain   
   >>> anything metaphysically by believing in such a character?   
   >>>   
   >>>> for the atheist, a desire to disconfirm a   
   >>>> God of accountability and judgement (as a potential recipient of those).   
   >>>   
   >>> Which we can easily avoid believing in, even if there were an   
   >>> Intelligent Designer.  So what do we gain metaphysically by denying   
   >>> the existence of such a creature?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Again, you're not following the logic here.   
   >   
   > How am I supposedly doing that?   
   >   
      
   I good way to progress a contentious discussion is to state the other   
   person's position in your own words, iteratively if needed to clarify   
   and understand. I invite you to do that as a next step.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)